Arianna Continues Slobberfest Over Katie Couric

I have long asked this question in the comments section of Huffington Post and have yet to see anyone from that site respond to it, but why is Arianna so invested in pumping up Katie Couric, one of the most prominent pin ups of how mediocrity has driven down the credibility of the news business.

Thursday, HuffPo ran a screaming headline with a photo of Couric wearing a commando helmet that blithered, "COMMANDER COURIC!" The article that was attached to is here under a different headline now.

The piece also basically uses the conflict that is killing American soldiers and innocent local civilians as a backdrop for Couric to play celebrity monkeyshine games against, an act of such bald callousness and fakery that it boggles the mind.

Several commenters got shots at Couric through the snotty and politically correct moderating staff. Here are some excerpts:

"The thought that comes to my mind when I see pictures and read articles like this is that we need to end the embed program. It is a disgrace" (WarSkeptic)

"SPARE U.S.

"Martha Stewart's guest, Katy Couric demonstrates MRE preparation, NEXT! Stay tuned-you don't want to miss THIS!" (mommadona)

"That kind of picture got us President H.W. Bush" (Uosdwis)

"Mission Accomplished" (mikefina)

There had been others that had initially shown up, but the censors then deleted them because we can't have anyone dissing Arianna's beloved Katie.

This is all just gauche. Both Arianna and Couric ought to be ashamed of themselves. However, being a celebrity means having the shame gene excised from one's DNA. And this article proves that the procedure was a success.

Arianna Does a Turn on the Governmental Catwalk

One of the more annoying aspects of Huffington Post is Arianna Stassinopoulos Huffington using it as a vehicle for promoting herself. She testified the other day before a Senate subcommittee about the future of journalism. This raises a whole host of questions:

1. What is the government doing wasting time on the state of a profession? That is for the folks in that field to decide, not the government, especially as how government and media are supposedly adversarial (okay, I'll wait while you finish laughing).

This is a far different issue from net neutrality, which the government does have rightful input on because it is of grave public concern.

2. What can the Senators who hear this testimony do about it? Nothing. I don't want a government bailout of newspapers. The newspapers shouldn't want that, either for a whole host of reasons, one of which is that it would effectively put newspapers and the government in bed together. That is not healthy for the state of objective journalism.

3. If certain media outlets decide to require subscriptions for access to their content, well, that is their business. I think the subscription approach is hopelessly wrongheaded for a mass market product like the news because it inherently shrinks the available audience for that product, but the companies take the risk. The marketplace will speak. Don't intervene in it.

4. Is any of this testimony stuff we haven't been hearing the last two years? No.

Consequently, this hearing won't change squat and is little more than a kind of lowbrow kabuki theater.

But hey, Arianna never met a tv camera she didn't like.